Argyle King
Legend
I think there's a middle ground between a PC being important and having a stable of characters.
Hirelings, henchmen, squires, magical steeds, familiars, and etc can be part of a retinue without being the primary focus.
FWIW, I started with "modern" games. D&D 3rd Edition was my first exposure to D&D (and -minus a very brief attempt at playing Rifts- to ttrpgs in general). After that was 4th Edition and now 5th Edition. I read a lot of these conversations and sometimes wish that "modern" games did incorporate more of that older design that I didn't get to experience in D&D.
Maybe this isn't the case, but (in my head) I imagine that approaching combat and conflict in a world built more like (but not necessarily the same as) the older style of game would help give importance to the other pillars of play and breadth-of-play (aka horizontal advancement).
To me, that does a better job of portraying the books, movies*, and stories that I find interesting. Sure, Conan was a legendary PC and could defeat several enemies on his own, but he still had sidekicks and allies when it fit the story. I like that a legendary creature like Smaug might take a squad or small platoon to overcome. There's still a place for the PCs to shine in those stories. To me, it's cooler for a hero to lead an army; storm the castle gates; or land the killing blow on the dragon after a hard-fought battle than it is for a hero to be defined by a mountain of HP and being able to fight an army on his/her own.
I can and do enjoy a good power fantasy, but I find it less interested and less mentally rewarding for longterm play.
That might be why I started to gravitate toward some of the non-D&D ttrpgs.
Hirelings, henchmen, squires, magical steeds, familiars, and etc can be part of a retinue without being the primary focus.
FWIW, I started with "modern" games. D&D 3rd Edition was my first exposure to D&D (and -minus a very brief attempt at playing Rifts- to ttrpgs in general). After that was 4th Edition and now 5th Edition. I read a lot of these conversations and sometimes wish that "modern" games did incorporate more of that older design that I didn't get to experience in D&D.
Maybe this isn't the case, but (in my head) I imagine that approaching combat and conflict in a world built more like (but not necessarily the same as) the older style of game would help give importance to the other pillars of play and breadth-of-play (aka horizontal advancement).
To me, that does a better job of portraying the books, movies*, and stories that I find interesting. Sure, Conan was a legendary PC and could defeat several enemies on his own, but he still had sidekicks and allies when it fit the story. I like that a legendary creature like Smaug might take a squad or small platoon to overcome. There's still a place for the PCs to shine in those stories. To me, it's cooler for a hero to lead an army; storm the castle gates; or land the killing blow on the dragon after a hard-fought battle than it is for a hero to be defined by a mountain of HP and being able to fight an army on his/her own.
I can and do enjoy a good power fantasy, but I find it less interested and less mentally rewarding for longterm play.
That might be why I started to gravitate toward some of the non-D&D ttrpgs.
